of the narratives as the counterparts of like char- acters and events in the religious sphere, and introduced details from this latter sphere into the illustration. Thus, for instance, when we com- pare St. Matthew's version of the parable of the Supper with St. Luke's (Mt 22i-", Lk W^--*), nianj' of the new features in St. Matthew appear to be due to this tendency. The Supper of St. Luke has become the marriage-feast of the king's son, i.e. the Messiah ; the king, in spite of the refusal of the guests, sends tliein a second invita- tion (vv.3- ■*) ; they ill-treat and slay the servants who bring the invitation, and the king sends forth his armies to destroy them and to bum their city (vv."- '). Evidently tiiese details are suggested by the thought of Israel's behaviour towards her God, and the fate that overtook her. Again, in the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen, St. Mark relates that they took the son and slew him and east him out of the vineyard ; -nhile St. Matthew and St. Luke reverse the order, and make them first cast him out and then slay him, with evident reference to the fate of Jesus (Mt 27^'"^, cf. He 13'=). Again, in the parable of the Watchful Servants (Mk 13^-", Lk 12^-f ), St. Luke repre- sents the master as girding himself and making them sit down to meat and serving them, though he has himself borne witness (IT™-) to the unlike- lihood of such conduct on the part of any ordinary master. Such extraordinary condescension is prob- ably an allegorical feature introduced with refer- ence to the Parousia.
2. If we accept the traditional principle of para- bolical ' interpretation,' in how far are we justified in seeking to interpret the circumstantial details so largely present in the parables? There are some who insist that every little detail is sig- nificant, and who regard that as the true method of interpretation which seeks to find some spiritual truth to correspond to every item of the illustration. ' Quanto eniiii plus solidre veritatis,' says Vitringa (quoted by Trench, ch. iii.) 'ex Verbo Dei erueri- mus, si nihil obstet, tanto magis divinam commend- abimus sapientiam.' Teelman (quoted byJlilicher, Die Gleichnisredcn Jesu, i. p. 270) insists that in every parable every word must be significant. And Petersen {ib. p. 271) maintains that Christ never introduces the slightest detail into any parable which is not designed to correspond to something in the interpretation. On the other hand, it has been Generally recognized that there are limits beyond which the details of the illustration must not be pressed. ' Sunt autem quae et simpliciter posita sunt,' says Tert. (dcPtulk. 9), 'adstruendam et disponendani et texendam parabolam.' Chry- sostom (in Mt. Horn. Ixiv. 3) lays down the rule : oiiSi XPV T'o.vra to. ev rah Trapa^oKaTt Kara. X^fiv W£pupyd^£<r0at, aWa tov aKoirbv /laOovTas, Si' Sf (jwtT($r), TOVTOv SpireaBat Kai ii-qUv ToXt/irpaynovfiv Tepaaipu. But great difference of ojiinion exists, even among those who profess to observe Chry- sostom's canon, as to where the woXvirpayiioveTv begins. Indeed, if the principle of ' interpretation ' be admitted at all, if the parables, as such treat- ment of them involves, in spite of all protest to the contrary, are really allegories, it is difficult to see on what ground a line can be drawn beyond whicli it is illegitimate to interpret the details. The more perfect the allegory, the more will it admit of interpretation down to the minutest circumstance. And so long as tlie significance attadied to these details is relevant to the tenor of the whole, the interpreter may well demand on ^^•hat ground it maj' be objected that the details in ([uestion are not to be regarded as symbolical. The artificiality of the method and the unsatis- factorine-ss of the conclusions may be urged as an objection to the general principle of parabolical
CITY
'interpretation' underlying such method, but on that principle the method itself appears thoroughly defensible.
3. If we reject the principle of parabolical 'interpretation,' does not the circumstantiality of the illustrations become mere useless ornament? This is an objection raised against those who contend that the parables are not to be regarded as allegories of wliich we have to seek the interpre- tation, but as comparisons between the principle involved in some case taken from everyday life and a similar principle which it is desired to establish in the spiritual sphere. Those who maintain this view insist that it is only the principles or relations involved in the two different spheres that are comjjared, not the details on either side. There is only the one point of com- parison between the two cases, only the one lesson enforced by the parable. In answer to the objec- tion that this seems to reduce the fulness of detail with which the illustrations are elaborated to mere useless ornament, it is replied that though the details are not regarded as significant in the symbolical sense, they are yet full of significance as serving to bring out with force and clearness the thought which it is the purpose of the parable to enforce. Were the illustrations not presented with such circumstantiality, tliey would not be so convincing as they are. The scene is brought vividly before our eyes ; our interest is awakened, our sympathy enlisted. Many of the details which cause such trouble to the allegorical in- terpreters, as, e.g., the injustice of the Judge (Lk 18'"*) and the fraudulence of the Steward (Lk 16'"'^), may easily be explained from this point of view. The injustice of the Judge serves to bring out more forcibly that it was the importunity of the widow that overcame him ; the fraud of the Steward emphasizes the fact that it was for his wisdom alone that he was commended. And so witli all the details with which tlie parables are supplied. There is no useless ornament. Every little touch serves to bring out more clearly the central thought enforced by the illustration, and so contributes to the effect of the parable. Literature. — See the list at the end of article Parable.